CA: US-101 southern end issue?

[rickmastfan67]

We honestly need to extend the route south some more.

US-101 maintains it's own carriageways thru the I-5/10 interchange malfunction, and still has one more exit beyond '1A' @ Exit 1 for Euclid Ave (onramp).

Thus, we should have the merge point between both I-5 & US-101 between Euclid Ave & I-5 Exit 133 (Grande Vista Ave).

This is what I recommend:

Code: [Select]

I-5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.026161&lon=-118.207848
1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.026986&lon=-118.209672
CA60 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.029474&lon=-118.215294
SotoSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.030829&lon=-118.217917
1A +I-5/10 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.034046&lon=-118.221120
1B http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.042983&lon=-118.221066

This will require the movement of the 'CA60' & 'I-5' labels from being hidden under 1A, but needed.  Also will prevent any false multiplex the way I have it setup, while still giving proper graph connections with I-5 (once new point is added to I-5's file) & CA-60.

If this is done, would require a news entry.

[cl94]

This is a clash between "as implied" and "as logged". In the logs, US 101's southern end is at 7th Street (Caltrans is even nice enough to give us a S0.00 postmile). Anything south of there is officially a ramp. Signs are unclear about the southern terminus, with one random pullthrough south of Exit 1A mentioning US 101 and no other signs for it SB. There are cases where the official definition of the route extends to the gore point within a large interchange (for example, SRs 51/244 on the north side of Sacramento end at the I-80 gores, as does 880 in Oakland).

All of this to say, I think this warrants a larger discussion. Do we include an implied extension even if the logs are clear about "nope" and there are examples elsewhere in the state where such a situation is logged as part of the main route?

[neroute2]

It's not quite the same, but we have I-80 continuing west of its end according to FHWA (and I've seen a few Caltrans documents that call it SR 80 west of the old SR 480 ramps).

[Duke87]

I'd leave it, the way it is matches CalTrans logs and is KISS-principle compliant.

That said, the 134B point on I-5 probably should be 134C - neither direction has an exit numbered 134B for 101, 10, or 7th St.

[oscar]

We discussed rejiggering the south end of US 101, as part of the usaca preview thread (which kind of makes sense, since it affected a usaca route as well as usai and usaus), and made significant changes to US 101 as well as I-5 and CA 60. Search in that massive thread, for past discussion that might minimize any need to reinvent the wheel.

[rickmastfan67]

Well, we have a similar issue to this over in NY, where both two routes are on separate carriageways: I-90 & US-219
Another example would be I-40 & I-240's western junction in TN.

This is one of the reasons I brought this up.

[Bickendan]

It seems rather odd that there's 1.5 km of the Santa Ana Freeway has no route number while the Golden State Freeway straddles the Santa Ana, especially as this historically was the 101 before the 5 subsumed the 101 south of the Golden State Freeway. Considering that Euclid is only accessible from US 101 and not from I-5 (access is a quarter mile southeast of Euclid), even on KISS principal, ending the 101 at 7th is too much of an abstraction of what's happening on the defacto southern end.
Otherwise, technically, we shouldn't have a graph connection between the 80 and the 101 in San Francisco. At any rate, it's signed as US 101, not 'to US 101' where I-5 leaves the Santa Ana Freeway. https://maps.app.goo.gl/1P66dTEWm919NAzL7

Random observation: GMSV labels the US 101 portion of the Santa Ana as 'El Camino Real'. 
Not until Santa Barbara, Google. I'll accept Ventura at the earliest.

[pderocco]

Random observation: GMSV labels the US 101 portion of the Santa Ana as 'El Camino Real'.

I'm not seeing that. Was that a temporary glitch?

[cl94]

Well, we have a similar issue to this over in NY, where both two routes are on separate carriageways: I-90 & US-219

The difference here is that, as far as NYSDOT is concerned, US 219 ends at the north end of the C/D road. The Ridge Road exit is officially off of US 219, reference markers reflect this, and US 219 has an END assembly at the merge. There is no official record of US 101 extending south of the currently mapped endpoint.

[Bickendan]

Random observation: GMSV labels the US 101 portion of the Santa Ana as 'El Camino Real'.

I'm not seeing that. Was that a temporary glitch?

At the merge from Whittier Blvd:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/L3RDQSKeWnMzfrpy8

[Bickendan]

Well, we have a similar issue to this over in NY, where both two routes are on separate carriageways: I-90 & US-219

The difference here is that, as far as NYSDOT is concerned, US 219 ends at the north end of the C/D road. The Ridge Road exit is officially off of US 219, reference markers reflect this, and US 219 has an END assembly at the merge. There is no official record of US 101 extending south of the currently mapped endpoint.

I still don't like that as if you're doing a full clinch of the southern end of the 101, you're driving down the entire 'unnumbered' portion (which was historically the 101 before the 5 was around), and you're relying on the 5 to count this clinch, when the 5 doesn't even have access to Euclid, a US 101 exit.

This is a letter of the law vs spirit of the law issue; if there were an auxiliary system covering this (US 101H, a Named Freeway system, an LRN system), the point would be moot. I'd say go by the northbound I-5 BGS signage at this point, which shows "US 101" and not "To US 101".

[rickmastfan67]

Well, we have a similar issue to this over in NY, where both two routes are on separate carriageways: I-90 & US-219

The difference here is that, as far as NYSDOT is concerned, US 219 ends at the north end of the C/D road. The Ridge Road exit is officially off of US 219, reference markers reflect this, and US 219 has an END assembly at the merge. There is no official record of US 101 extending south of the currently mapped endpoint.

That's why I brought up TN I-40 & I-240's western junction as another example as it fits the I-5/US-101 one better.
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=null&r=tn.i240&lat=35.154898&lon=-90.020868&zoom=16

[rickmastfan67]

Well, we have a similar issue to this over in NY, where both two routes are on separate carriageways: I-90 & US-219

The difference here is that, as far as NYSDOT is concerned, US 219 ends at the north end of the C/D road. The Ridge Road exit is officially off of US 219, reference markers reflect this, and US 219 has an END assembly at the merge. There is no official record of US 101 extending south of the currently mapped endpoint.

I still don't like that as if you're doing a full clinch of the southern end of the 101, you're driving down the entire 'unnumbered' portion (which was historically the 101 before the 5 was around), and you're relying on the 5 to count this clinch, when the 5 doesn't even have access to Euclid, a US 101 exit.

Also, as I mentioned in the original post, Euclid DID have a US-101 exit number (Exit 1) posted till the sign was either mowed down in a wreck, or was stolen, as the pole is still there partially till this day.

[rickmastfan67]

Let's throw in a crinkle to the 'postmile' thing here.  Are we going to 'remove' and make a gap in both US-101/CA-1 along the Golden Gate Bridge?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?msg=2993938

Supposedly,  the Caltrans postmile tool no longer does recognize the Golden Gate Bridge or exit 439 as part of US 101 per that post.

[oscar]

Supposedly,  the Caltrans postmile tool no longer does recognize the Golden Gate Bridge or exit 439 as part of US 101 per that post.

I'm not sure it ever did. This is a very old issue, addressed (in favor of keeping US 101 and CA 1 intact) as part of the revamp that among other things brought exit numbers to the route files for US 101 and other US routes in California.